Guest essay by David Archibald
The latest image from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) shows our sun as a blank canvas. No sunspots. Solar cycle 24 activity continues to be lowest in nearly 200 years
According to NASA’s Spaceweather.com:
Sunspot number: 0
Updated 30 Jun 2016
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 7 days
2016 total: 11 days (6%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
The last time sunspots vanished for a whole week was in Dec. 2010–a time when the sun was bouncing back from a long Solar Minimum. In this case, the 7 week interregnum is a sign that a new Solar Minimum is coming.
The sunspot cycle is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth every 11-years or so between times of high and low sunspot number. The next low is expected in 2019-2020. Between now and then sunspots will become increasingly rare with stretches of days, then weeks, then months of “billiard-ball suns.”
The F10.7 flux has been in a disciplined downtrend for nigh on 18 months now. It is now only nine units above the immutable floor of activity of 64:
Figure 1: F10.7 flux 2014 – 2016
We have F10.7 data from 1948. Plotting up the whole solar cycles since then, Solar Cycle 24 has been following Solar Cycle 22:
Figure 2: F10.7 flux of Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 22
In Figure 2 above, Solar Cycle 24 (red line) has been following the activity of Solar Cycle 22 (black line) for the last two years. If it keeps following Solar Cycle 22’s activity, that will make it a weak, short cycle. Strong cycles such as Solar Cycle 22 are generally shorter than average and weak cycles are generally longer. The other solar cycles are shown as dotted lines.
The solar polar field strength divergence continues to build and is unprecedented in the record:
Figure 3: Solar Polar Magnetic Field Strength by Hemisphere
Finally, Figure 4 following shows that the peak of the F10.7 flux in Solar Cycle 24 was in February 2014. The Oulu neutron count duly turned up a year later (inverted in Figure 4) in March 2015.
Figure 4: F10.7 Flux and Inverted Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016
What is interesting from Figure 4 is that there has been a consistent increase in the neutron count relative to F10.7 flux over Solar Cycle 24 relative to the relationship in the previous four cycles.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery).
I’m starting to think LS may be correct, I think the sun is basically a very constant stable heat source over 1000’s of years. Maybe over ~100,000 yrs or so there are changes (ie Vuk). As humans we do not experience much climate/weather change due to sun as it does not change flux ect heat output.
wrong
A source of heat, really?
Goodness gracious, great balls of fire.
“The sun is basically a very constant stable heat source”
Personally I have never heard Leif Svalgaard say such a ridiculous thing, has he gave you the impression that it is?
Well, it is stable to within a few tenth of one percent, which should qualify as ‘very stable’ in anybody’s book.
Okay Captain Obvious.
So, how does this help us increase taxation, increase government tyranny, and destroy Western civilization??
That’s all we need to really know.
How clueless some are when it comes to the climate.The climate has reacted pretty much as expected over the past few years due to all the natural climatic factors favoring warmth from moderate to high solar activity due to the weak but still maximum of solar cycle 24 , to a lack of any major volcanic activity , to a warm PDO/AMO, to the recent very strong El Nino and warm ocean temperatures in general which are due to high to very high solar activity all of last century especially 1940 -2005.
Global cloud cover and snow cover also have been in general below average which allow for the climate to warm.
Yes solar activity has been less then normal post 2005 but the maximum starting just 5 years later although weak still dampened solar effects. The solar criteria being much above my solar criteria through out the recent maximum of solar cycle 24 which I feel is needed for the sun to impact the climate.
Now surprisingly sooner then I thought many of the solar parameters have come down or are very close to the solar criteria I have called for which should result global cooling. It is only July 2016 and this down trend is forecasted to bottom out around year 2019 or even later. How low will the solar parameters go as we head forward? The data will show and needs to be closely watched. All of the solar data presented in this article will have to be monitored.
CURRENT SOLAR PARAMETERS WHAT I CALLED FOR TO CREATE COOLING
COSMIC RAY COUNTS AROUND 6450 UNITS CALLLED FOR +6500 UNITS
EUV LIGHT AROUND 90 UNITS CALLED FOR SUB 100 UNITS
SOLAR FLUX LATELY WELL UNDER 80 CALLED FOR 90 OR LOWER
SOLAR WIND STILL ABOVE 350 K/SEC CALLED FOR SUB 350KM/SEC
AP INDEX STILL + 10 LAST FEW MONTHS CALLED FOR 5 OR LOWER
These conditions once all met which I think will happen and if sustained in duration should effect the natural climatic factors which will bring the climate toward cooler conditions moving forward.
Sunspots don’t drive planetary temperature, but they are a very good indicator of what does.
lsvalgaard July 2, 2016 at 7:48 pm
The dynamo is not ‘interrupted’.
———————————————–
There are issues though Dr. S.
The Non-Conforming Cycle 24
http://www.leif.org/research/Non-Conforming-SC24.pdf
Image snipped from AGU Parker Lecture 2015, illustrating also, non-conformity.
http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac65/csspider57/Open%20Album/Residualflows%2096.2016.jpg
Still, I think that there are issues with TSI. Good and plenty GCR spallation occuring in the satellite environment.
Maybe when your brain frees up some extra memory, (SSN revision done now?) you might have a look at this.
Under heading solar cycle change there are 2 at 100% and GCR at 50%. GCR spallations produce protons too..among lots of other things…………………………..
http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac65/csspider57/Open%20Album/Energy%20Earths%20Atmosphere.gif
Borrowed the above table from;
SOLAR IRRADIANCE 01.01.08
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html
…………………………………….Lots of other things……………………………….
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/catch/cr2b.gif
Congratulations Dr. Svalgaard.
None of this has anything to do with the interstellar magnetic field. Try to stay on topic or focus.
You should show some understanding of perspective here.
Here is your table again:
TSI 1366 W/m2
MUV 15.4
FUV 0.05
EUV 0.01
GCR 0.0000007
SProt 0.002
AProt 0.001
Joule 0.02
To give you an idea of the contribution of the various sources.
SOLAR IRRADIANCE
01.01.08
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/science/Solar%20Irradiance.html
“”Energy from other sources also enters our atmosphere. A table of some of them is shown below. Note that the energy input from Joule heating, a coupling of the ionosphere to the magnetosphere, can be about the same as from solar EUV!””
see table
http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac65/csspider57/Open%20Album/Energy%20Earths%20Atmosphere.gif
The FIRST of several cascades that a GCR produces, generates multiples of:
Protons, Neutrons, Pions, Electrons, Muons, and Photons.
see image of Cosmic ray cascade.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/catch/cr2b.gif
Seems like a strong ionization and photo ionization energy potential in all this…
Thanks , Carla . That’s an important link .
While I’ll agree that the Sun is remarkably stable , a factor in our very existence , it seems that 0.1% variation in TSI correlated with the solar cycle may be only half the total range or less . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php gives the average as 1,368 W/m2 . I have some computations from June 4 which show values of about 1,361 from an article here . But that’s probably here near aphelion and the annual TSI variation amounts to about 4.6 degrees , much larger than the variation this AlGoreWarming fraud is about .
I’ll be more impressed that we’re really seeing signal thru the noise when the effect of that variation in TSI is detected and accounted for . It’s non-optional .
gives the average as 1,368 W/m2 . I have some computations from June 4 which show values of about 1,361 from an article here
The TSI shining on the Earth varies by some 70 W/m2 during the year due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. The variation of the true TSI [that the Sun puts out] is only a few tenths of one percent.
Keeping within the current standard practice of Anthropogenic Climateers, I fixed that graph for you.
😀
Flowing through the interior of the heliosphere, with a mach # of 1.97 a secondary “warm breeze,” of ISN.
Wondering how they get a mach 1.97 out of 11.3 km/s?
But this fairly newly discovered ISN “warm breeze,” persists…in Earth’s orbit.
Now how might this contribute to messing up an already messed up TSI value, I mean there is a population, no?
INTERSTELLAR NEUTRAL HELIUM IN THE HELIOSPHERE FROM IBEX OBSERVATIONS. IV. FLOW VECTOR, MACH NUMBER, AND ABUNDANCE OF THE WARM BREEZE
Marzena A. Kubiak1, P. Swaczyna1, M. Bzowski1, J. M. Sokół1, S. A. Fuselier2,3, A. Galli4, D. Heirtzler5, H. Kucharek5, T. W. Leonard5, D. J. McComas2,3
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/25
© 2016. The American Astronomical Society
From Abstract
..””These observations were collected during the ISN observation seasons 2010–2014 and cover the region in the Earth’s orbit where the Warm Breeze (WB) persists””..
..””We approximated the parent population of the WB in front of the heliosphere with a homogeneous Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution function and found a temperature of ~9500 K, an inflow speed of 11.3 km s−1, and an inflow longitude and latitude in the J2000 ecliptic coordinates 251.6 deg, 12.0 deg. The abundance of the WB relative to ISN He is 5.7% and the Mach number is 1.97. The newly determined inflow direction of the WB, the inflow directions of ISN H and ISN He, and the direction to the center of the IBEX Ribbon are almost perfectly co-planar, and this plane coincides within relatively narrow statistical uncertainties with the plane fitted only to the inflow directions of ISN He, ISN H, and the WB. This co-planarity lends support to the hypothesis that the WB is the secondary population of ISN He and that the center of the Ribbon coincides with the direction of the local interstellar magnetic field (ISMF).””..
Now how might this contribute to messing up an already messed up TSI value
By nothing at all.
lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Now how might this contribute to messing up an already messed up TSI value
By nothing at all.
———————————————
You need to start upstream with this, Dr. S.
Non- Conforming cycle 24 and the Non-Conforming TSI
Carla Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 3, 2016 at 12:47 pm
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/30/the-sun-is-as-blank-as-a-billiard-ball-solar-activity-dwindling-to-lows-not-seen-in-200-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2251004
Could be an interaction region or null point, way out thar in the Voyagers new frontier land…
note.
Overlapping gyro- radius of GCR> outgoing tailside > incoming upwind side> convergence 0 AU Northern.
No, none of this can get past the supersonic solar wind and in any case the energy involved is too minuscule to even consider.
Solar Cycle theory by me…
1. As the sun and solar system traverse through the interstellar magnetic fields over solar cycles, the magneto pressure increases and builds, while the two fields (solar/interstellar) convene with each other.
2. As the solar cycle progresses the magneto pressure forces magnetic flux towards the solar equator.
As the solar cycle progresses further, activity at the solar equator increases with sunspots and CME’s and sun breaks the reconnection.
3. Cycle progresses further and solar magnetic flux goes poleward building solar polar magnetic field strength, until the two fields, solar and interstellar convene again.
Repeat …
Process could take ooh let’s see … around 11 or so years to complete.
Since magnetic fields cannot penetrate into the solar system because the solar wind is supersonic with respect to propagation of magnetic fields, your ‘mechanism’ will not work.
The sun’s poles can and do…
The solar wind blows outward from the solar poles at up to twice the average speed, so sweeps away anything incoming.
Why are you saying to Carla that the suns polar differential (polarity) doesn’t reach into the solar system?
If you care to read what I actually said, you’ll see it is just the opposite: the solar wind [also from the poles] blows outwards to the heliosphere far away and keeps anything magnetic or charged from going the other way [towards the sun] and therefore cannot influence the solar cycle.
The “Magnetic Fields” you seem to be referring to are different from polarities. I agree that the suns poles sweep by the solar system and solar winds blow outward.
Look, the suns poles rotate and reverse, obviously the intensity of the flow of energy is directed outward.
No, if the magnetic field is pointed outwards its polarity is positive [or North]. If the magnetic field is pointing inwards [towards the sun] its polarity is negative [or South]. The polarity is simply the direction of the magnetic field.
What are you saying “No” for? if the suns polarity either Positive or Negative are at the solar equator, the poles are pointing outward sweeping through the solar system, the suns magnetic poles can not “point inwards”.
It’s obvious that you’re just being derogatory, trying hard to say I’m wrong…
A magnet has two poles, one where the field point out from the magnet and one where the field points inwards toward the magnet:
Both poles, positive and negative are directly opposed to each other, they are magnetically aligned in one direction and both sweep through the solar system, one pole is positive and the other is negative, the direction of energy flows from negative to positive, neither pole points inward.
Both poles +/- have an equal and opposite force and both point outward…
Sparks, that is complete nonsense.
The magnetic fields point in opposite directions at the two poles, but have nothing to do with ‘energy flow’. The solar wind flows away from the sun because it is very hot regardless of the magnetic poles.
Make you’re mind up Lief, one minute you’re arguing that one pole points inward and the next you’re arguing that they point in opposite directions, obviously the solar wind flows away from the sun, that point was not brought up by me and I certainly did not say anything to the contrary.
Make you’re mind up Lief, one minute you’re arguing that one pole points inward and the next you’re arguing that they point in opposite directions
Yes, one pole points inwards, and the other pole points outwards, thus the two poles point in opposite directions.
Now you’re making sense, this large-scale structure of alternating polarities, obviously this occurs over the course of a solar cycle, it does not occur during minima when these polarities are at rest at the geographic poles.
Therefore it is only when this ‘large-scale structure of alternating polarities’ sweeps through the plane of the solar system do we see a rise in solar activity.
his large-scale structure of alternating polarities, obviously this occurs over the course of a solar cycle, it does not occur during minima when these polarities are at rest at the geographic poles.
It occurs ALL THE TIME, especially at solar minimum. Here you can see what the polarity was as it swept by the Earth all the way back to 1926: http://www.leif.org/research/spolar.txt
It has also been possible to extend that back to the 1840s.
Here is an explanation of how it comes about:
http://www.leif.org/research/Model%20Polar-Sector%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields.pdf
I had a read through “Model Polar-Sector Solar Magnetic Fields” in the link above, I’ve noticed where your model is back to front, you appear to be taken localized magnetic field observations on the sun and translating that data as the cause of the suns magnetic poles, and the polar reversal, the suns dipole [m] is the cause of the localised magnetic fields [B] not the result of the localized magnetic fields on the surface, it’s my opinion that you revise your model, not your data.
You can argue that the dipole consists of both [m] and [B] but [m] is produced by way of E=mc2 where the mass of the star is producing [m] and [m] is producing [B]… [B] does not produce [m].
the suns dipole [m] is the cause of the localised magnetic fields [B] not the result of the localized magnetic fields on the surface
The sun’s dipole [m] is observed to be the result of the magnetic fields [B], so you have to modify your beliefs. See e.g. slide 5 of http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf
One can directly see how the magnetic fields from the active regions move to the poles to form the polar fields [and thus the dipole]. Observations beat beliefs, every time.
The observations are not in question, your interpretation of the data is.
The active region is not produced until the poles move towards the solar equator and produce the active region…
Your belief that an active region is produced before the poles move is what I find questionable.
Regardless of the magnetic polarity [in or out], the solar wind always flows out dragging the magnetic polarity with it, so in the outward flowing solar wind there will be both magnetic polarity pointed in to the sun and magnetic polarity pointing away from the sun forming a large-scale structure of alternating polarities [the ‘sector structure’ discovered by Wilcox and Ness in 1965]. Note, that ‘polarity’ is magnetic polarity [the only one there is].
RE: “A magnet has two poles, one where the field point out…”
Both polarities in a closed dipole have an equal and opposite force, the flow of energy travels in one direction and both poles on the sun face toward the solar system as they sweep through during every solar cycle.
Hypothetically if you could take a star the exact same as our sun and faced each negative pole towards each other the repulsive force between the two stars would repel them away from each other. Therefore both Poles are facing away from the sun.
I give up for now. There are limits to the nonsense I’ll try to correct.
I’m being constructive pointing out your error, you’re too stubborn and your bate ‘n switch style of discussion is hilarious.
“magneto pressure” Xavier is taking care of this.
Variations in the Interstellar Magnetic Fields create hemispheric asymmetries we see over time in the solar cycle.
Like now, where we have a non-conforming northern magnetic field asymmetry.
NOTE size differential between two types of fields
No, they don’t as magnetic fields cannot penetrate into the solar system due to the supersonic solar wind.
Oh I see…
lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 5:43 pm
Since magnetic fields cannot penetrate into the solar system because the solar wind is supersonic with respect to propagation of magnetic fields, your ‘mechanism’ will not work.
__________________________
Thanks Dr. S.
But try this on for size.
The Interstellar Magnetic Fields are able to contain/restrain GCR (trapped between them) of strengths from several electron volts to mega, terra, pata,and higher energys.
As these, Interstellar Field Lines, build up across/around the heliosphere they are building a containment/pressure system, while converging/convening with the solar Interplanetary magnetic field.
But all that stays way out there at the heliopause and does not penetrate into the solar system, hence has no effect on the Sun
Carla July 3, 2016 at 6:13 pm: “The Interstellar Magnetic Fields are able to contain/restrain GCR
Physics Fail; fields can affect particles, or particles can affect fields, BUT, fields cannot affect fields.
What you might misinterpret as “constraining” is probably simple superposition where the wave meet, as in applying the superposition principle found in physics and and engineering, and which describes the overlapping of waves. Not the convolution of the product of one and another either, but the simple overlaying of each as they pass in space.
Its why radio waves do interfere with each other, UNTIL they enter an antenna and interact with matter again (conductors, semiconductors including diodes and transistors,)
Correct the above to: Its why radio waves do NOT interfere with each other,
If the sun travels 5 AU a year through the ISM how many Interstellar Field Lines pile up over a solar cycle?
Might be the solar cycle could teach us something about the Local distribution of the Interstellar Magnetic Fields in the vicinity of the solar system over long period of time.
No, because the interstellar magnetic field does not penetrate into the solar system because of the supersonic solar wind.
How many times have I said that? dozens? scores?
Some people are hard of learning…
If the sun travels 5 AU a year through the ISM how many Interstellar Field Lines pile up over a solar cycle?
And over a billion years?
Apply a few gray cells and think about it!
Evidently there is a mechanism [reconnection comes to mind] that removes magnetic fields from the nose of the heliosphere. The same mechanism works for the Earth: solar wind magnetic fields don’t pile up at the nose of the magnetosphere.
lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 6:48 pm
No, because the interstellar magnetic field does not penetrate into the solar system because of the supersonic solar wind.
——————————————–
I was thinking that it was the Interstellar Field that was piling up, creating a pressure imbalance over time.
Following article in the abstract, thinks we already have an idea about,
“”estimate the gradient scale size of the magnetic field.””
Summary was interesting. see below. Maybe tomorrow can look this over.
TRIANGULATION OF THE INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELD
N. A. Schwadron1,2, J. D. Richardson3, L. F. Burlaga4, D. J. McComas2,5, and E. Moebius1
Published 2015 October 29 • © 2015. The American Astronomical Society.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L20/meta
summary and conclusions
..””This implies that the ordering of the interstellar field persists
over much larger spatial scales than that of the heliosphere.
Further, these results strengthen the conclusion that the
anisotropies in TeV cosmic rays are organized by this field
direction over many parsecs in the local galactic environment
(Schwadron et al. 2014).””
MIT also publishes the paper on their own site:
http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/100896
I was thinking that it was the Interstellar Field that was piling up, creating a pressure imbalance over time.
None of this matters as there is no piling up over long time periods, and even if there were, magnetic effects cannot penetrate into the solar system because of the supersonic solar wind.
June number now plotted on the trend chart:
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif
Solar looking extremely weak and heading toward my criteria.
Data , not predictions made by some will determine what is happening the sun.
If sun reaches and stays at my criteria global temperatures will fall, and this is taking into account ENSO impacts.
Today is the 11th and likely last spotless day in a row for the time being. A spot is forming on the face of the sun while another appears to be rotating into view.
“A” sunspot forming!
Imagine that.
And it appears to be a dandy…just make sure your screen is spotless and you have a magnifying glass handy:
http://www.solarham.net/regions/map.htm
I see nothing.
http://cesar.kso.ac.at/main/cesar_start.php?date=2016-07-04
It would be easy to mistake it for a speck of dust on your screen Salvatore.
That must be why they circled it.
It was slightly easier to see last night I think.
Spot or no spot solar activity is very low right now and expected to remain so for another couple days.
http://sidc.oma.be/
“INFO FROM SIDC – RWC BELGIUM 2016 Jul 04 12:30UTC
The solar activity remains very low. The GOES background X-ray flux is near
B1-level.
The period of lacking solar activity is expected to continue. No Earth
directed CMEs were observed in the last 24 hours.
The solar wind disturbance due to the influence of the coronal high speed
streams is weakening. The magnetic field magnitude is currently near 5 nT
and solar wind speed is stable at about 450 km/s. Geomagnetic conditions is
quiet to unsettled (K=3 at maximum), which is expected to continue for the
next 48 hours. An elongated positive polarity coronal hole is currently
transiting the central meridian which may result in a solar wind
disturbance within 3 days.”
So far no blip off the 0 base line.
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/DATA/EISN/EISNcurrent.png
I could not help noticing that solar cycle 24 is has the lowest maximum of my 60+ year life time. Even lower than solar cycle 20. Makes me wonder if it will have the most extended minimum.
I could not help noticing that solar cycle 24 is has the lowest maximum of my 60+ year life time.
It was predicted to be lowest in a 100 years
lsvalgaard
This brings up a question. Is there a strict definition for the term “Grand Solar Minima”? Or for the opposite “Grand Solar Maxima”? We having been hearing predictions that we may be entering a “Grand Solar Minima” for some time. But the only definition I have found to describe the term is “several solar cycles which display lower than average activity”. Seems like a rather nebulous definition to me. Is there a more definitive one?
No, there is no real definition. It is like pornography: you know it when you see it 🙂
Well without a better definition then some will see it while others deny seeing it. I guess then one can just judge that a solar minima actually occurs when there are three or more below average cycles.
WAY below average would be better. As far as I am concerned we have only observed ONE grand minimum: The Maunder from 1640 to 1700.
It may well be that 2555 will be a visible spot when it rotates into view over the next day or two:
http://www.solarham.net/farside.htm
lsvalgaard July 3, 2016 at 8:44 pm
……You should show some understanding of perspective here…….
———————————————-
Thanks Dr. S.
My main concern was with the pesky GCR.
Depending on electron volt strength, the GCR cascades, go on and on. One GCR, produces multiple cascades. These cascades are producing their own particle populations, that interact with other particle populations. Just this alone, confounds the TSI record. The satellites themselves experience more GCR radiation than ground instrumentation. Being able to differentiate between a solar proton and GCR proton is just one of many cascading issues. IMO
As for the “supersonic solar wind,” I am as tired of hearing about it as you are in having to mention it. eek
I will keep reminding you that, the outgoing solar wind, which produces this nice little heliosphere bubble we reside in, is being constrained, by the Interstellar Magnetic Field.
This Interstellar Magnetic Field, pressure dents the heliospheric’s bubble nose and FLATTENs the heliotail.
Not to mention 1st and 2nd particle populations inflowing from interaction regions.
TOWARD MORE REALISTIC ANALYTIC MODELS OF THE HELIOTAIL: INCORPORATING MAGNETIC FLATTENING VIA DISTORTION FLOWS
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02699.pdf
Jens Kleimann1, Christian Röken2, Horst Fichtner1, and Jacob Heerikhuisen3
Published 2015 December 29 • © 2016
See page 9 Figure 7 for current model.
Whenever I see one of these types of Interstellar Magnetic Field models draping over the heliosphere, my brain seems to always go back to the seams of a baseball, and at what angle do the fields need to be to produce those seams. The baseball seams are for me, synonymous with the heliospheric current sheet boundary.
Note- neutral line is the base of the IMF current sheet.
Must be somethings yet unknown about the magnetic reconnection processes.
Happy, fun and safe Independence Day to us all..
Just this alone, confounds the TSI record.
No, it does not at all.
As for the “supersonic solar wind,” I am as tired of hearing about it as you are in having to mention it.
Willful ignorance is the worst of sins in this business.
Must be somethings yet unknown about the magnetic reconnection processes.
One should not invent ‘something unknown’ just to explain why your explanation does not fit the facts.
Meanwhile, out at Jupiter, those magnetic fields sure sound creepy.
Although I was previously fairly certain that my ears could not hear magnetic fields…well, you learn sumthin’ new every dang day, iff’n you pay attention:
http://www.iflscience.com/space/juno-has-recorded-what-the-magnetosphere-of-jupiter-sounds-like/
HenryP July 3, 2016 at 2:46 am
As I have said before, it is unclear to me whether the “Gleissberg cycle” actually exists, and if it does exist, just how long it might be. I’ve seen it claimed as having lengths from 80 to 120 years. I’ve written about it here and here. There are serious problems with Gleissberg’s claims.
How does one “not believe in looking at” some physical reality?
“Always looked”? This is just an emotional appeal for recognition of the Hale cycle. And indeed the Hale cycle is real. However, it is a modulation of the Schwabe cycle. In other words, alternate Schwabe cycles are slightly different. There’s a good analysis of the issue here, along with a discussion of the anomalously long Solar Cycle 4.
Thanks for the graph. However, without a link to the underlying data that you used, I’m unable to comment. If you’d provide such a link I’ll take a look,
I fear that the results from one location are less than convincing. You need to repeat your analysis on a bunch of locations. There is precipitation data widely available. If your hypothesis is correct, the effect should show up in both individual stations and global averages. Sounds interesting, let us know.
Best regards,
w.
lsvalgaard July 4, 2016 at 10:44 am
Just this alone, confounds the TSI record.
No, it does not at all.
As for the “supersonic solar wind,” I am as tired of hearing about it as you are in having to mention it.
Willful ignorance is the worst of sins in this business.
Must be somethings yet unknown about the magnetic reconnection processes.
One should not invent ‘something unknown’ just to explain why your explanation does not fit the facts.
——————————————————
Ya know, the flattening in the heliotail as described below, reminds me of the Earthly reconnection process.
In the Earthly process, the earth’s magnetotail rebounds more quickly after the reconnection compression, and subsequent energy release occurs.
There are some things that still need to be understood when describing those processes at galactic size and time scales. Part of the time scale is in the distance distance the solar system travels over a solar cycle, through the Interstellar Magnetic Field. For all we know the strength of the interstellar field may a have a lower to higher strength variation over the time period. 2 to 6 variable
TOWARD MORE REALISTIC ANALYTIC MODELS OF THE HELIOTAIL: INCORPORATING MAGNETIC FLATTENING VIA DISTORTION FLOWS
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02699.pdf
Jens Kleimann1, Christian Röken2, Horst Fichtner1, and Jacob Heerikhuisen3
Published 2015 December 29 • © 2016
none of this matters as the magnetic field cannot travel inwards towards the sun, such like a boat moving at 2 knots cannot sail upstream in a river moving at 5 knots.
Which also explains why we never “heard” what the magnetic fields around Jupiter sounded like until now. eh?
That’s right. We have to go there to ‘hear’ them.
lsvalgaard July 4, 2016 at 1:02 pm
none of this matters as the magnetic field cannot travel inwards towards the sun, such like a boat moving at 2 knots cannot sail upstream in a river moving at 5 knots.
———————————————–
Yes, Dr. S., I get the little analogy.
Little analogy back at you..
Take away the Interstellar Magnetic Field.
Take away the interstellar headwind blowing into the heliosphere.
Take away any particle population including GCR.
Will the solar cycle still be the same as we see it now?
The sun is a product of its environment.
There headwind cannot blow into the heliosphere.
So the solar cycle will be completely unaffected.
How many times do I have to say that?
“How many times do I have to say that?”
As many times as it takes you to provide the desired answer…
Dr. S., in the extreme cases, where the solar system is embedded in a very dense cool interstellar cloud the pressure gradients would be greatly affecting the solar activity cycle. And I know, that you know that.
But for now we have the current not so dense and not so cool interstellar cloud. But maybe seeing converging interstellar field lines where clouds or shells are colliding. Which is not out of the interstellar pictures, yet.
So below is the here and now we deal with.
Charge exchanged, pick up ions can, and do get gravitationally focused in.
WE have that upwind crescent and downwind focusing cone deal, still going on at the earth orbit.
Solar cycle variation of interstellar neutral He, Ne, O density and pick-up ions
along the Earth’s orbit
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.01186.pdf
Justyna M. Sok´ol, Maciej Bzowski, Marzena A. Kubiak, and Eberhard Mobius
Accepted 2016 March 01
Abstract
..””We conclude that the non-zero radial velocity of the ISN flow and the energy range
of the PUI distribution function that is accumulated are of importance for a precise
reproduction of the PUI count rate along the Earth orbit. However, the temporal
and latitudinal variations of the ionization in the heliosphere, and particularly their
variation on the solar cycle time-scale, may significantly modify the shape of PUI cone
and crescent and also their peak positions from year to year and thus bias by a few
degrees the derived longitude of the ISN gas inflow direction.””..
All the best to you and V.
where the solar system is embedded in a very dense cool interstellar cloud the pressure gradients would be greatly affecting the solar activity cycle. And I know, that you know that.
This COULD happen if the cloud is dense enough, but such a dense cloud would block all sunlight from reaching the Earth and life would go extinct. Since life goes back at least three billion years, this has not happened in three billion years and is thus not something we need to worry about. It is much more likely that the Sun will expand and kill all life in about a billion years from now.
The solar cycle rules the heliosphere, not the other way around.
But since you are a slow [even recalcitrant] learner, be happy in your [wrong] beliefs. No need to keep reminding us that you are unwilling to learn anything.
Just of note the solar criteria I have called for, for all of the categories is now starting to be realized which is part one of my solar /climate theory. I always thought this criteria was reachable. Still only time will tell as to how sustained this my be.
Part two will be does it have the climatic effect (if the solar criteria is sustained) that I have said it will.
If it does have the climatic effect I have called for then those who oppose will have to prove why this is not the case. The tables will be turned. I explained in detail why/how it would happen.
.